 |
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:36
|
|
I don't see why money is a concern unless the "profit margin" of the blood so to speak is very, very, very small. Let's suppose the percentage of gay men with HIV is 7%. Now, let's suppose the percentage of straight men with HIV is much smaller.
If it's ineffecient to take blood from gay men, but effecient to take blood from straight men, that implies that the benefit society gets from healty blood is only marginally greater than the costs society pays for testing it (that is, the value we get from the blood is less than 7.5% more than the cost of testing). Which seems true only in a warped value system.
Last edited by Ramo on 22-05-2004 at 05:17
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
 |
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:36
|
|
What's with everyone? I'm wondering if this is all some big joke, or if everyone's seriously having a huge brainlapse concurrently...
As I've demonstrated, gays are not the only minority with an above average HIV infection rate, yet they are the only ones discriminated against. Further, the VAST majority of gays who got HIV got so from unprotected sex *OR* injection drug use, it's not inherently because they're gay.
Asking if they've engaged in unprotected sex or injection drug use is far more effective than targeting a sexuality.
And, as Ramo has shown, the argument that not allowing gays to donate would save money is also a very questionable argument.
So I fail to see where I've been "pwned" here (and for the last time, it's "pwn3d").
Banning gays from donating is convenience and easier to get away with than banning ethnic minorities: yet, if we were to follow the logic of banning higher-than-average risk factors, we'd also be banning black people from donating (which certainly would not happen).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001
time: 00:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
Let's go through this.
You said:
quote:
I'm just saying that arguing X percentage risk is acceptable is stupid, and that's one of the points you're trying make. |
Which means that there is no set risk that is ever acceptable.
So how can you say there is any acceptable risk if you reject the notion of saying you can set an acceptable risk level? 
If you can't set an acceptable risk level as acceptable, then you either don't look at the risk level (any level is acceptable), or you say no risk level is acceptable (therefore, no risk is ever acceptable).
Which is it? |
Christ Asher - are you this difficult in real life?
I said, and the context was painfully clear, that all other things being equal, some "X" that's five times riskier than some "Y" makes "X" unacceptable - as in, why needlessly take more risk when you don't have to. I said this in response to this post by you:
quote:
Higher than average does not equate high risk, Imran.
By your logic, if 1 in 1,000,000,000 people has a disease and is white, and 5 in 1,000,000,000 people have a disease and are brown, brown people are "high risk". In actuality, both are low risk, and combined with tests that are 99.99% accurate, I think it's not appropriate to ban them. |
THAT is stupid, because common sense says that even in the above scenario, everything else being equal and given the choice, you'd choose blood, or sperm or whatever from the white group, every single time.
IS THAT CLEAR?
Ok, then you accuse me of saying things that I'm clearly not. Given the entire context of our discussion thus far, how could you possibly conclude that "I'm just saying that arguing X percentage risk is acceptable is stupid, and that's one of the points you're trying make." means "there is no set risk that is ever acceptable."? I've explicitly stated, several times, that if given a choice (again, everything else being equal) a higher risk option is unacceptable. No where did I ever say, or imply, that no risk whatsoever is acceptable. I've also said that just because YOU PERSONALLY (and I can quote myself on this, if you want) define the risk to be acceptable does not make it so.
The rest of your post is just meaningless crap intended to support your distortion of my argument because you have the complete inabilty to admit an error on your part.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kontiki
Christ Asher - are you this difficult in real life? |
In real life, I'm more difficult. It's why I'm good at what I do, of course -- I like being precise.
quote:
I said, and the context was painfully clear |
Obviously not. Seeing as that's what your entire post consisted of, you didn't set up the necessary context for that comment -- the way you worded it came out completely different than what you wanted. That's your fault, not mine.
quote:
that all other things being equal, some "X" that's five times riskier than some "Y" makes "X" unacceptable - as in, why needlessly take more risk when you don't have to. I said this in response to this post by you: |
Because it's more complicated than that -- we don't have a huge, overflowing supply of blood and organ donors, and both of them are extremely small odds, that it would be stupid to have to choose between one of them, unless you had a huge oversupply (last I checked, this wasn't the case...)
quote:
THAT is stupid, because common sense says that even in the above scenario, everything else being equal and given the choice, you'd choose blood, or sperm or whatever from the white group, every single time.
IS THAT CLEAR? |
Yes, it's clear, but it's irrelevant because of that nifty phrase "everything else being equal", because they are clearly not. Oversimplification over an overly simplified mind: 3 people need a blood transfusion, only three donors are available: 2 straight and 1 gay, and all of which are tested for HIV and other diseases before the transfusion.
Do you tell one of them he can't get a transfusion, or do you think that it's an 'acceptable risk' to use the gay man's blood?
"IS THAT CLEAR?" 
quote:
Ok, then you accuse me of saying things that I'm clearly not. Given the entire context of our discussion thus far, how could you possibly conclude that "I'm just saying that arguing X percentage risk is acceptable is stupid, and that's one of the points you're trying make." means "there is no set risk that is ever acceptable."? |
Gee, I don't know. Maybe because in a stand-alone post with no immediate context, you said:
quote:
I dunno. I'm just saying that arguing X percentage risk is acceptable is stupid, and that's one of the points you're trying make. |
which is clearly not what you meant -- but it is what you said. That is an error on your part, not on mine.
How did I conclude that?
X is standard notation for a variable which can stand for anything, so it's a wildcard. So therefore, you said "I'm just saying that arguing any percentage risk is acceptable is stupid."
Simple, isn't it?
quote:
The rest of your post is just meaningless crap intended to support your distortion of my argument because you have the complete inabilty to admit an error on your part. |
The hypocrisy is killing me.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by monkspider
Asher clings too much to his preconceived notions as to let such silly things as "facts" interfere. |
What facts?!
The FACT is, that the VAST majority of HIV infected gay people got infected from unsafe sex, not because they were gay.
The issue is unprotected sex, not sexuality.
The issue is how other higher-risk minorities are not discriminated against, just gays.
The issue is NO ONE who is arguing against me has made an actual case. No one can explain why other "higher risk" groups are exempt. No one can explain why we don't just prevent people who had unsafe sex from donating. No one can explain what the threshold is for "acceptable risk" and what determines "high risk".
It's clear that it's all arbitrary, and that it's convenient to pigeonhole homosexuals and just ban them. I'm not denying that homosexuals do have higher instances of HIV, but I'm asking people to think past that convenient generalization -- the reason why is because more homosexuals practice unsafe sex, not worrying about pregnancy.
There is no rational explanation for why monogamous gays who practice safe-sex are not allowed to donate blood and organs if they so choose. Period.
If somebody wants to present a counter-argument, do so. It's rather funny how a handful of people now have failed to do so, yet prance around saying how I've been "pwned".
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:36.
Apolyton Time is 00:36. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-05-2004 01:31
|